Today I reinstalled the ATR after about a 6 month period.

I flew the plane with a Simbrief flight plan, and a load which was just under 75% of the MTOW.

On climb out, after engaging CLB mode on the power knob, I was seeing only 1000 FPM at 160 knots (IAS mode) - all the way to 17,000'. 😶

I checked and was definitely in 'Notch' on the power levers.

In cruise I got only 195 KIAS at 17,000' ..... with a TAS of around 242.

Surely this plane is not this gutless IRL?    Perhaps it does have a very slow cruise speed, but the climb cannot be right at 1,000 FPM, down on early climb out?

Anyone else notice this, or is there something up with my set up of the plane?

I don't have many hours in this bird - so may be user error, but can't think what else could be the cause.

tl;dr: Yes, it is pretty "gutless" --  but probably not to the extent you're seeing. It'd be good to get some more details.

• You don't specify -- are you talking about the ATR 42 or 72?
• What was your ISA deviation?
• You say your load was "75% of MTOW" -- does this mean you took 75% of the possible payload or that your TOW was 75% of the MTOW of 23 tons (which would be 17.5 tons)? IOW, what was your actual TOW?
• Really silly question: Flaps and gear retracted?
• Can you post some screenshots at various phases in the climb?

Taking a look at the performance charts in a publicly available ATR 72 FCOM:

Page 861 lists cllimb performance at 170 knots. Let's assume your TOW was 17 tons. According to the chart, early in the climb, you'd expect to see around 2000 fpm (are you saying you got only 1000 fpm even this low?), but from about FL 120 you're only getting 1000 fpm, and less above FL 200.

Page 883 lists cruise performance at 17 tons. Assuming ISA temperatures, you should be getting 224 KIAS / 282 KTAS at FL 160, and 217 KIAS / 281 KTAS at FL 180. By interpolation, you should see about 220 KIAS / 282 KTAS at FL 170. The numbers you got are significantly lower -- so I have to think something is off there. (It's been a while since I've flown the ATR in MSFS, so I don't recall how it compared to the "book numbers" for me.)

Yes that's normal, especially when you're heavy.

1 hour ago, martinboehme said:

• You don't specify -- are you talking about the ATR 42 or 72?
• What was your ISA deviation?
• You say your load was "75% of MTOW" -- does this mean you took 75% of the possible payload or that your TOW was 75% of the MTOW of 23 tons (which would be 17.5 tons)? IOW, what was your actual TOW?
• Really silly question: Flaps and gear retracted?
• Can you post some screenshots at various phases in the climb?

Thanks, and good points.

It was the ATR 72.  ISA was at standard (I was using a really simply, plain weather preset). My TOW was 17 tons.   On the flaps and gear, it's funny you say that because I kept checking the flaps and gear multiple times, even at 11,000 😄  ... that's exactly what it felt like - like the gear or flaps were still out.

I can confirm I never saw above 1100 FPM .... not even during climb out with flaps retracted and the gear up.   And yes, definitely in IAS mode (not VS mode at 1000 feet, which I also checked 😄).

It seems the ATR72 really is just very sluggish.   I didn't make any screenies and don't plan to fly the route again soon, but I think I'll try the ATR42 at a lower TOW and see how it goes.

Cheers.

5 minutes ago, JYW said:

Thanks, and good points.

It was the ATR 72.  ISA was at standard (I was using a really simply, plain weather preset). My TOW was 17 tons.   On the flaps and gear, it's funny you say that because I kept checking the flaps and gear multiple times, even at 11,000 😄  ... that's exactly what it felt like - like the gear or flaps were still out.

I can confirm I never saw above 1100 FPM .... not even during climb out with flaps retracted and the gear up.   And yes, definitely in IAS mode (not VS mode at 1000 feet, which I also checked 😄).

It seems the ATR72 really is just very sluggish.   I didn't make any screenies and don't plan to fly the route again soon, but I think I'll try the ATR42 at a lower TOW and see how it goes.

Cheers.

Yep. Turboprops have low ceiling anyway, so no need for rocket climb rates. Airlines use the ATR because it can be used on very short runways (island hopping for example), in rather hostile environments and is extremely efficient fuel wise. It's like your sturdy work horse.

Welcome to the ATR.  Be glad it’s not a -300 because they’re even more gutless.  We’re lucky to get 500 fpm above 20,000.  
 

The -42 should have a bit more speed.  The -500 I fly trues out at like 295 TAS. 
 

It’s got a big fat wing that flies slowly on approach, which is great for 2900 foot runways.  

Edited March 25, 20242 yr by ATRguy

8 hours ago, ATRguy said:

Welcome to the ATR.

This was going to be my response, too (the ATR certainly isn't a performer). I went into the performance tables, fully expecting to find just about the numbers that @JYW observed. But when I did, I found that the "book numbers" are significantly better than what @JYW saw (and he's confirmed he's in ISA conditions).

At 17 tons and a 170 knot climb, the book says climb rates down low should be around 2000 fpm, but @JYW says he never saw more than 1100 fpm.

At 17 tons and FL 170, cruise speed should be 220 KIAS / 282 KTAS, but @JYW saw only 195 KIAS / 242 KTAS.

A flight model is never going to be perfect, but these numbers are way off. Maybe the flight model is really this bad, or there's something else going on. I'm tempted to do a test flight and see what numbers I get.

10 minutes ago, martinboehme said:

This was going to be my response, too (the ATR certainly isn't a performer). I went into the performance tables, fully expecting to find just about the numbers that @JYW observed. But when I did, I found that the "book numbers" are significantly better than what @JYW saw (and he's confirmed he's in ISA conditions).

At 17 tons and a 170 knot climb, the book says climb rates down low should be around 2000 fpm, but @JYW says he never saw more than 1100 fpm.

At 17 tons and FL 170, cruise speed should be 220 KIAS / 282 KTAS, but @JYW saw only 195 KIAS / 242 KTAS.

A flight model is never going to be perfect, but these numbers are way off. Maybe the flight model is really this bad, or there's something else going on. I'm tempted to do a test flight and see what numbers I get.

Last night I had 20 tons TOW and was climbing about 1000-1500 FPM up to level 150, probably even more right after takeoff (did not watch out for it). Cruise speed was then around 220 knots. Wouldn't expect more to be honest.

4 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

Last night I had 20 tons TOW and was climbing about 1000-1500 FPM up to level 150, probably even more right after takeoff (did not watch out for it). Cruise speed was then around 220 knots. Wouldn't expect more to be honest.

That sounds fine, and it matches the book numbers. Point is, @JYW was getting significantly less. From what you say, it doesn't sound as if this is a general problem with the flight model though -- so it seems something is wrong on @JYW's end. @JYW, if you do fly the ATR again, can you post some screenshots? I suspect you're not getting full climb / cruise thrust for some reason.

Can confirm the 1000ft/min climbs.

FMS speed target 170KIAS, after FL100 I had to settle at 1100-1000fpm climb performance.

TOW of around 22 metric tons (23 is max I think) . ISA-10C

Edited March 25, 20242 yr by SAS443

I’m flying a 42-500 today, I’ll take a look at what I’m getting for climb rates and see how it is.  

So a takeoff weight about 41,000 pounds yesterday, the 42-500 I was in climbed out pretty well at 160 knots.  We were late off the gate and climbing at like 190 and still managing over 1000 fpm.   At FL220 we were truing 290 at 87% torque and 82% NP.  In the notch, in AUTO, and power management in CRZ.  IAS was about 215.  TAT was -31.  
 

The 42 does quite a bit better than the -72, that’s for sure.